Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 9,051-9,100 of 12,463

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "I do think people should be given respect. I think first time posters should be able to answer the question, simply, as long as they don't make inaccurate or inappropriate posts. "
I agree that people should be given respect, though I think it is also possible that someone can lose that respect by their actions. That is clearly what has happened between myself and cs, from both sides, for whatever reasons. I agree with Shanna's point though that once somebody posts, they are free to have questions asked of them. If they do not wish to answer, they do not have to, and they will not be hounded or chased, at least not by me. If they do choose to engage then there will inevitably be differences in approaches to debate, and that will inevitably in some cases lead to a breakdown in communication, as I feel happened with John. I think it is fair though if someone says, in this thread, they prefer one of the other for some stated reason, that they can be questioned on that reason, by anyone.

[Heather]

Robert wrote: "Heather wrote: "Robert wrote: "The trick to getting good information on science is, always look for reliable sources. In other words, don't trust Yahoo! news for your science news. There are all ki..."

I definitely think you're right, to an extent. Yes, we have become something of a meritocracy; places like The Art Institute and ITT Tech are evidence of that. What really grinds my gears about them is that they aren't accredited and yet manage to convince people that without a degree from them they will invariably fail.

I think the real problem is, we don't teach people how to detect baloney when it's staring them in the face; Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit is something that needs to be taught in middle and high schools because it's so easy to get taken advantage of.

[cerebus]

Heather wrote: "I think the real problem is, we don't teach people how to detect baloney when it's staring them in the face; Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit is something that needs to be taught in middle and high schools because it's so easy to get taken advantage of. "
Absolutely, critical thinking is definitely something that should be taught from an early age.

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "Honestly, when it comes to those statements, I feel like they're a standard argument made to theists and not a response to my posts."

They are response to your posts, there is a vague criticism, with I think first time posters should be able to answer the question, simply, as long as they don't make inaccurate or inappropriate posts. you seem to imply that first time posters reply to subsequent questions against their will, or they're lured into a trap, thus a victim. They can answer the question simply, they do not need to comment further, normal human discourse and inquiry is optional, you seem to be critical of those that inquire or comment on someones else's comment, how are we to conduct a discussion without it? Are we compelling others to come back, to read responses to their comment, no...

Sorry to make you reiterate, which questions? :)

[Shanna]

Shannon these ones?

Why do non-believers feel so inclined to question almost every single believer almost every single time? Personally, I don't think it has to do with being non-believers and being more open to questioning. I say that because some non-believers have said some seriously inaccurate or inappropriate things here and not many, if any, non-believers have questioned them. Right? So, I'd ask .... Are non-believers questioning due to a commitment to truth and questioning, solely? (Does the evidence show that?) Or, is it about something else? If the latter, what is at the bottom of it?

Why do non-believers feel so inclined to question almost every single believer almost every single time?

You never know when you might find a surprising believer (like you) who does not conform to the norm? or has a different thought provoking approach?
Because sometimes the comments are so pat and clearly from a "faith" playbook that one can hope to make the person think...

I say that because some non-believers have said some seriously inaccurate or inappropriate things here and not many, if any, non-believers have questioned them.

We're all fallible human beings....

Are non-believers questioning due to a commitment to truth and questioning, solely? (Does the evidence show that?)
Some are, some aren't. Atheists are human beings and run the gamut of hypocrisies any other person might.

Or, is it about something else? If the latter, what is at the bottom of it?
You'd have to poll each individual for that. Some love the debate, some the mental exercise...

[cerebus]

Shanna wrote: "You'd have to poll each individual for that. Some love the debate, some the mental exercise... "
For me it is definitely the mental exercise, and the chance to learn and change my mind if required.

[Shanna]

cerebus wrote: "Shanna wrote: "You'd have to poll each individual for that. Some love the debate, some the mental exercise... "
For me it is definitely the mental exercise, and the chance to learn and change my mi..."

For me it's help me to sharpen my critical thinking skill, I think I've come along way since I first came to this thread. Also as a non-working mother with two littlies it constitutes some adult conversation for me :) sad I know but there it is.

[Robin]

I am glad the debate is back to religion and science, and not Hitler or what ever was mentioned in between the 185 pages of threads. Once I see Hitler's name brought up, I just disengage but that is just me.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "Shannon these ones?"

Yes, thanks for answering. (Regarding force and victims, I, personally, think something can be lacking somewhat in respect without either. That would imply something, I suppose. It just doesn't seem right to me. But, I don't think something has to involve force to be sketchy. Are the posters who say religion gives us morality hunting us down and forcing us to read their posts? No. Their assertion is still inaccurate and inappropriate. Do posters who say war is caused strictly by religion hunt me down and force me to believe as they do? No. But, at the end of the day, whether intentionally or not, their posts are still inaccurate and inappropriate. Like I said, though, that's my feeling and I can't explain it. I'm not sure where it comes from, though I suspect it's a cultural thing. Not sure.)

Signed,

Glad I just got a snow day call 'cause I stayed up too late last night and I know what you mean about conversation and being with kiddos all day ;)

[R.J.]

My daughter unplugged my internet last night, so I went to bed. Now that I've had a night to think about it, I guess I should put my thoughts more succinctly.

More than seven billion people on this planet can't see the flaws in their personal belief system--whichever one it is. Some call their belief system "religion" and others have another name for it. It is still a belief system. There is not a single human being on this planet that is "magically" exempt from "magical thinking". It takes discipline. That discipline, in itself, could easily be called a relgion of its own. It's a paradox.


Heather mentioned a difference between science and pseudoscience. There is very little science left in this world. Most of what we accept is accepted by faith. Either we have placed faith in the research, or faith in the credentials on the wall of the person(s) announcing the study, but it is still faith. If you want to find truth, it's going to take some vigilance.

[Travis]

Shanna wrote: "Shannon these ones?

Why do non-believers feel so inclined to question almost every single believer almost every single time? Personally, I don't think it has to do with being non-believers and bei..."

My thought on the 'why we question every single believer' is that we've established that almost every single believer has their own version of religion, even if they belong to an established one, and you kind of need to figure out where they fit in the grand scheme of things in order to engage them further.

As well as seeing how they feel about the whole debate discussion thing. Some you ask and they jump right in, some just wander off, as they just showed up to make their choice known.

[Maria]

Some people post to answer the question "science or religion" then leave. They have no interest in debating, discussing, or whatever - and are under no obligation to do so, even if asked a question. It is not a reflection of them as a person, just their choice.

Maybe they stumbled upon the thread when they added Angels and Demons to their shelf, or whatever and decided to put their two cents in. That's fine.
If someone has a question for them, they're free to ask, but shouldn't demand an answer, even if the person's post was inaccurate or inappropriate.

Others, and I think I'm in this group - like to discuss, debate, ask, answer and talk. Which is also fine. I've gotten to know some of you and look forward to seeing your posts, here and on other threads. Whether I jump in with a comment or question depends on my mood, how much time I have, and whether it is a topic I feel the need to comment on. I may go weeks just reading, then all of a sudden jump in. Then I "wander off" as Travis said.

Any and all of this is fine. The only thing we shouldn't do, in my opinion (and I'm guilty of it at times, I admit)- is be rude or condescenging. Again, it depends on my mood at the time and sometimes a comment hits home or strikes a nerve. But really I don't think anyone here means any harm or malice to anyone else, even when they disagree.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: Why do non-believers feel so inclined to question almost every single believer almost every single time?

It is the nature of the beast Shannon. Well at least on this type of forum thread where the numbers are unevenly balanced.

Another point worth taking into consideration is the restricted topic we are discussing. For example; I am in a minority here and therefore have very few allies, if any, but if the topic was for example, politics v science or books v dvd’s then the structure of this topics members, may well take on a different shape.

That said, this thread, the beast, has, over time evolved into what it is; and that is a platform for debating atheists to question the folk who are ‘believers’. Now that is not necessarily a bad thing, it is just the way it has taken shape. It has become a sort of ‘honey trap’ to catch the unsuspected religious person. But once these people find out it is a trap they don’t hang around for long, hence the lack of religious people here.

Why am I still here? Because I am the exception to the rule. I can separate belief, religion and science. But I am being constantly told that I can’t do that, and when I say that ‘belief’ trumps ‘lack of evidence’ it’s as though I am speaking in tongues. Yet outside this forum I am not the minority.

[Sharon]

I would rather live in a world without religion. If you look back into history you will find that most wars and ruthlessness was due to religion. In fact, the wars and killings today are because of religious fanatics. Religion has always been used to control the masses through doctines and fear.
Science, on the other hand, always works toward the betterment of life. Yes, I know science also creates weapons to be used in the killing of people. Mankind has always waged war on each other since the beginning of time. It is part of human nature.

Religion does not guarantee love, fulfillment, morals or happiness. It does put restrictions on your life and then penalizes you if you break the rules.Today's beliefs are ingrained from early life and as people brought up in one religion or another, we are taught that we must believe in order to have a fulfilled life.

I really think that if we were a world of science, we would have a much more peaceful existence. The wonders of life and the world around us would be our "religion".

[[deleted user]]

Sharon wrote: "I would rather live in a world without religion. If you look back into history you will find that most wars and ruthlessness was due to religion. In fact, the wars and killings today are because of..."

Actually, most wars weren't due to religion. You might want to check out post 8725, or Google information on the BBC website regarding the cause of most wars.

Here ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi...

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "If you want to find truth, it's going to take some vigilance. "
So what steps do you take to ensure this vigilance, and what truths have you found?

I disagree with your definition of science requiring faith. It may be accurate for some people, but the point of science is you can educate yourself and research and experiment yourself and produce the evidence yourself...that you cannot do this for every scientific experiment ever due to issues of time, money, equipment, intelligence etc is not the fault or problem of science. Science does not require that you take a pronouncement and accept it without question, which is what faith would require. Certainly from my perspective a religious interpretation of faith is that you are told what it is your flavour of religion believes, and you should accept that without question, and certainly without asking for evidence. If there is evidence, then it is not faith, and you're not showing the correct level of dedication to your religion....you are not a "true believer". Science does not require that. Science specifically requires evidence, and unlike religion will change if the evidence shows it is necessary.

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "...when I say that ‘belief’ trumps ‘lack of evidence’ it’s as though I am speaking in tongues."
I wouldn't say you are speaking in tongues, but to say one thing 'trumps' another in this case is your personal choice. You are free to hold that, but from a scientific perspective it simply doesn't follow. For me 'lack of evidence' is just that, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't require me to fill any void left by that lack with anything. If lack is addressed and that void is filled, great, if not, fine. There is not a need to fear that if it will never be filled I should put something else in its place temporarily. The fear I would have is by doing that you lessen the incentive to investigate to find that evidence....

cs wrote: "Yet outside this forum I am not the minority. "
Are you referring here to numbers of those saying they have a faith vs those who don't? If so then yes, you probably are in the majority, but I don't see that that is strictly relevant? Is the majority always correct?

[cerebus]

Sharon wrote: "I really think that if we were a world of science, we would have a much more peaceful existence."
As an atheist I would love to also think this, but I think the fatal flaw in any of this is people....we are all subject to cognitive issues that allow us to ignore, explain away, justify and demonise. A great example of this I have linked to many times before is The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight, but there are many others too.
As an atheist what I would hope for is a decline in the hold religions have, or attempt to have, on societal issues such as gay marriage, creationism as science, etc. I have no issue with someone having a faith, and choosing not to marry a same-sex partner, or to believe that the world is less than 10000 years old and that all life was created in its current form, but where I strenuously object is when that faith is used to try and enforce those views on others. It is for that reason I would answer the original question as "I would prefer a world without religion", but I do not think we would suddenly end all conflict, and that crime would immediately disappear, and that we would all be living in a utopia.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Why do non-believers feel so inclined to question almost every single believer almost every single time?

It is the nature of the beast Shannon. Well at least on this type of forum t..."

I think you mean to say belief is the reason I ignore evidence.
Not that I'm not happy to see you keeping up the card playing metaphors, but I think you used it wrong.

[Travis]

cerebus wrote: "Sharon wrote: "I really think that if we were a world of science, we would have a much more peaceful existence."
As an atheist I would love to also think this, but I think the fatal flaw in any of ..."


My main objection to religion is people using it to change how the rest of us have to live their lives.
If they'd leave me alone, I'd leave them alone.

But, cheerful and optimistic as I am, I still think even if all religion went away, people would be jerks to each other.
They'd just have to be a bit more honest about why.
I actually have more respect for the argument 'gay people make uncomfortable' than I do 'god says...'

[Travis]

Robert wrote: "My daughter unplugged my internet last night, so I went to bed. Now that I've had a night to think about it, I guess I should put my thoughts more succinctly.

More than seven billion people on thi..."

We have faith in science because push come to shove there has to be proof that it works and other people can repeat those results.
It's not magic.

Religion is. It has nothing but faith and belief. It provides no evidence.
And the constant announcement that the the two are the same thing is bullshit.

[byhera]

I think all we need the most in this world could answer the question ...

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Sharon wrote: "I would rather live in a world without religion. If you look back into history you will find that most wars and ruthlessness was due to religion. In fact, the wars and killings today..."

Two minutes...?!
If I am ever in a medical emergency, I am typing in that religion start wars.
No ambulance has a response time that fast.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Two minutes...?!If I am ever in a medical emergency, I am typing in that religion start wars. No ambulance has a response time that fast. "

Best not to. A lot can happen in two minutes.

In a medical emergency, Travis, I'd act in three to four seconds.

[R.J.]

cerebus wrote: I'd be interested to hear more about why you think atheism is a reaction or an uprising against religion. That is not something that I have ever felt was part of my atheism, and I certainly feel it is possible to be an atheist without rebelling against a religion. For me it comes down to the absence of belief...

My understanding of atheism is in two parts. First, I know family and friends who claim to be atheists. Some of them have different reasons than others. Some were just raised that way. Others have been so hurt by Christians and by God that they have turned their backs. At this point in my own life, I cannot condemn them, because I totally understand that perspective. The God I know can be cruel and cold and I don’t blame anybody for turning their back on Him. However, the God I know is also forgiving and understanding and is not out to smite those who do turn their backs on Him.

Second, my understanding of European history gives me a hint of the origins of atheist movements over the last few hundred years. I've mentioned this in church and gotten some pretty hard stares, but I honestly believe that atheism was God's answer to the horrible abuses by religion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The whole idea of “divine right of kings” had gotten so blown out of proportion during post Napoleonic Europe, who wouldn’t start questioning their faith and reject those kinds of teachings?

There is a third kind of atheism which I dub “outspoken atheism”, but I consider those two terms an oxymoron. These are the people who spend most of their breath disputing something they claim to not believe in. I don’t waste my days arguing about the existence of dragons or fairies, because I don’t believe they are relevant; it’s just silly. Yet I have met people who, the moment anything like faith comes into the conversation, suddenly go on the offensive. It’s not always about the denial of God; sometimes it is “morality” (whatever they think that is) that they are railing against. It is very clear by their behavior that there is at least some form of a belief in the entity that they have spent so many calories resisting, and I just can’t place them in the same category with the other two kinds of atheism I’ve mentioned above. (The other commonly used term for this kind of rebellious, anti-God behavior is “Satanism”. Like I said earlier, it is the inner three-year-old saying “don’t tell me what to do.” I know it’s not nice to call people Satanists, but I’m not the one who came up with that definition, and I prefer to substitute the “outspoken atheist” term since it is a little more tongue-in-cheek and a little less “burn in hell!” I’m not saying that this kind of atheist readily identifies himself as a Satanist, and I’m not saying that religious people should hunt them down and exterminate them, but the behavior is pretty much the same as the few people I have encountered who claimed to be real Satanists, so I can’t see any real distinction.)

[R.J.]

cerebus wrote: So what steps do you take to ensure this vigilance, and what truths have you found? I disagree with your definition ..."
I think you did a pretty good job of answering that question right there. Truth is always truth. It doesn’t change—only our perspective of it changes. The “laws of gravity” are still changing, but gravity in and of itself is still the same way it has always been. We’re just now getting to learning more about it. The same goes for mathematics—two plus two has always equaled four, and pi has always equaled 3.14… but some civilizations have stumbled through thousands of years not figuring those kinds of things out.

With truth comes consequences. Purest morality is the acceptance of these consequences as truth and taking action to avoid the ones we want to avoid. Some truths and their consequences we can ignore. There are other truths, however, that our survival as a species and a civilization hinge upon. Medicinal science is an example of this principle. Right now there are scientists who believe that humans are an accident a hundred-thousand years in the making. Other scientists believe the human body is designed by a brilliant Creator and every part has its purpose. What a scientist believes determines how he is going to treat that body. A scientist convinced that most of the human genes are just junk DNA is going to fuss and meddle with it, and there may be consequences. A scientist who is convinced that the human body was created by a Creator is going to make different choices about meddling with DNA. This is not just about genetic research. Right now in most developed countries, shysters in the preventative medicine industry have managed to convince the masses that the human race could not have possibly survived even six-thousand years without the dietary supplements, additives, and pills they are now hawking. If ever science (real science) can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not “processed foods” or “industrial pollution” that has so riddled our children with allergies, behavioral diseases, and immune disorders, (and especially if our society has lost its religious propensity to “turn the other cheek”), then I foresee a serious shortage of medical professionals with their heads still attached to their shoulders.

This does not only apply to medical science. Physics as we know it is largely the product of religious men who, seeking to understand their Creator, discovered the scientific principles we now embrace. (I do not understand why some atheists like to legalistically argue that so-and-so was really an atheist when it doesn’t really matter. I could just as easily argue that so-and-so was a Mennonite, but what benefit does it do to include them in that denomination? Especially if they are dead?) What I’m getting at is that, especially in the world of physics, science has not developed beyond the principles that were discovered before WWII. Wireless radio signals, superconductivity, and computer technology all existed back then (although I have not researched the LCD touch-screen on my phone—maybe the physics behind that technology is a newer discovery). The only thing that has changed is that manufacturing processes have gotten more precise and can make smaller components. I have a physics text book from the 1950s that teaches everything taught today except for the theoretical stuff that has yet to (and may never) be proven. As a person who grew up in the midst of the aerospace and electrical engineering industries, I can’t help but wish we’d made some real advances in the last fifty years, but it seems to me that most physicists have focused on producing indefinite theories that please the ears of their grant financiers. Do we not pursue truth because there is something down that path that we are afraid of facing?

[byhera]

balancing is must

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "There is a third kind of atheism which I dub “outspoken atheism”, but I consider those two terms an oxymoron. These are the people who spend most of their breath disputing something they claim to not believe in."
I would say those who turn against god because of something that happens are not necessarily atheists...there is still an implication there that they believe in a god but choose not to follow/worship because of bad things that have happened?
You don't seem to have a definition of atheist where someone doesn't believe in a god or gods, and who doesn't upbraid believers at every opportunity. I would put myself in that category....believe it or not I don't raise atheism at every opportunity, or every time I meet or speak to a believer. I understand this thread may give a different impression but I would say this is a thread that has become (even if not originally intended) as somewhere that atheism and faith is intended to be discussed. As for "Satanism" that seems a bit too black/white, I couldn't be a satanist any more than a christian since I don't believe in either a god, or satan.

[Shanna]

cHriS Wrote: "It has become a sort of ‘honey trap’ to catch the unsuspected religious person. But once these people find out it is a trap they don’t hang around for long, hence the lack of religious people here. "

The very fact that they can leave freely of their own free will negates the trap portion of your argument. The fact that they can read the some 185 pages of previous debate suggests that any thoughts of "honey" are a personal invention and irrelevent and for your part prejudicial.
This is what I thought Shannon was subtly implying too, you put it more bluntly. If theists are unwilling to discuss theirs and other beliefs and points of veiw perhaps the reason lies with them and not others...

[Shanna]

Travis wrote: "My thought on the 'why we question every single believer' is that we've established that almost every single believer has their own version of religion, even if they belong to an established one, and you kind of need to figure out where they fit in the grand scheme of things in order to engage them further.

As well as seeing how they feel about the whole debate discussion thing. Some you ask and they jump right in, some just wander off, as they just showed up to make their choice known. "

This too... wouldn't want them to feel ignored :)

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "cerebus wrote: So what steps do you take to ensure this vigilance, and what truths have you found? I disagree with your definition ..."
I think you did a pretty good job of answering that question ..."
I would make no distinction between the atheist scientist and the religious scientist in your example if they both adhere to the scientific method and rely on evidence. If the religious scientist claims dna manipulation causes issues then I would expect them to have evidence, in the same way if the atheist scientist claims cutting a chain of dna out has no consequences that they would similarly have evidence. There are motives other than religion or lackthereof....I don't really care if a scientist comes up with a cure for cancer because they are an altruist or because they want to be stonkingly rich. If they have evidence that their method works, that's enough. I totally agree with your comment earlier about needing to be aware of the money trail, in anything (science, religion, politics, financial advice, whatever), but again for me it comes back to repeatable evidence....there are 'scientists' (sorry, I have to use quotes) who claim intelligent design is proven by science, but cannot produce any verifiable, repeatable evidence.

From your description of lack of advances in physics it sounds like you are looking for paradigm shifts? Those are relatively rare, so it is not surprising that there haven't been many, but there are constant advances made in our understanding of physics, in many areas, for example quantum physics, astrophysics etc. You say " but it seems to me that most physicists have focused on producing indefinite theories that please the ears of their grant financiers. Do we not pursue truth because there is something down that path that we are afraid of facing?" but I would suggest if it is massive changes and advances you are looking for, the paradigm shifts, then it is precisely those kinds of research that will lead to that. I don't think I've ever come across a physicist saying they don't want to follow a line of research because of what they might find....are you suggesting that some research is not done as it may lead to legitimising religion/supernatural etc? If so I would disagree and again say that is precisely the type of paradigm shift that any scientist would love to be responsible for. The only problem is if it is explainable by science it ceases to be supernatural, it simply becomes part of science. If science discovers telepathy is real, it becomes another area of science that will be studied, researched, written about, all in the name of obtaining an explanation.

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "(I do not understand why some atheists like to legalistically argue that so-and-so was really an atheist when it doesn’t really matter. I could just as easily argue that so-and-so was a Mennonite, but what benefit does it do to include them in that denomination? Especially if they are dead?)"
Sorry, I meant to address this point but forgot. I agree with you, and if you look back through the thread you will see regular (usually hit-and-run) posts with the quote from Einstein saying something along the lines of we need both (just googled it, the "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." one), as evidence that he was religious, the implication obviously being if someone that smart is religious then it must be true. The usual response (if it is me responding) is to point out that a) the evidence is less clear on his religious beliefs, there are also quotes implying he was not religious, but more importantly b) it doesn't matter if he is religious or not, it proves and achieves nothing. I do not doubt that you have had people say to you that someone in particular is an atheist, therefore Win! but I don't recall seeing it raised in this thread? Either way, you're right, it doesn't prove anything, either way.

[R.J.]

cerebus wrote: "You don't seem to have a definition of atheist where someone doesn't believe in a god or gods, and who doesn't upbraid believers at every opportunity. I would put myself in that category....believe it or not I don't raise atheism at every opportunity, or every time I meet or speak to a believer..."

It is good to not fall completely into a category. Skeptical atheism is good; it is a search for truth. Do I believe any one religion holds the monopoly on truth? No. There are some really fantastic statements that have been made in my own church that I don’t agree with. Sometimes when I question them I get dirty looks like I am the antichrist. Oh well. I have to walk the path I’ve been given.

It is my understanding that the first person to be titled an “atheist” was Socrates. He didn’t believe in Zeus the way the religious leaders of his time did, and in the end they put him to death for it. Plato also questioned the Zeus of his time. By that definition, I, too, am an atheist, because I don’t accept the conventional, Zeus-like image of the Christian God. My personal experiences with the unexplained and the spiritual don’t leave that option open to me.

I must add one thing, only because it is from my own experience. I have seen three good friends who professed atheism suddenly curse God when tragedy struck in their lives. I don’t blame them a bit for their reaction to the things that were happening to them, but I want to repeat that I do not know the God who is angry and vengeful and is causing those bad things to happen because of any particular, personal vendetta. On one side, I would recommend C.S. Lewis’ book, The Problem of Pain. It has a Christian perspective as to why bad things happen. On the other side, I like to agree with Stephen Hawking who once said that God does indeed play dice every chance He gets.

[Heather]

Robert wrote: "cerebus wrote: So what steps do you take to ensure this vigilance, and what truths have you found? I disagree with your definition ..."
I think you did a pretty good job of answering that question ..."

In response to both of your posts, I consider myself a secular humanist; I don't like to make leaps of faith for that which cannot be answered, but if someone else finds comfort in faith and does not wish to impose their beliefs on me, I'm perfectly okay with that.

As for your assertion that scientists say we need supplements in order to survive, that's pretty much bunk. Most scientists and nutritionists will tell you that so long as you have a healthy nutritious diet you won't need supplements. In fact, the only people who do need to supplement their diets are vegans who can very easily become deficient in the B complex vitamins.

Most of what we read on "superfruits" and "miracle cures" are not done by doctors. Yes, you can get a great source of vitamin C from cherries, but is that fact going to stop you from aging? Absolutely not. There is a reason that things like vitamins and other supplements cannot be patented and are not regulated by the FDA. Plus, with many of some supplements, to get the beneficial part of the supplement you would practically have to reach toxicity levels. Take bloodroot for an example; there are all kinds of websites telling people to use it to halt cancer, but you would die before you were able to consume enough of it to actually have a chance of providing benefits.

[R.J.]

cerebus wrote: "The only problem is if it is explainable by science it ceases to be supernatural, it simply becomes part of science. If science discovers telepathy is real, it becomes another area of science that will be studied, researched, written about, all in the name of obtaining an explanation...."

The original definition of the word "metaphysics" means "beyond physics". I have been called a metaphysicist simply because my theories were byond what has been accepted by science. Then again, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, etc, all worked in the "metaphysical" fields of their day. Today's metaphysicists are in good company.

cerebus wrote: "I don't think I've ever come across a physicist saying they don't want to follow a line of research because of what they might find...."

...Although Einstein came close when he realized the potential of his atomic research. What is the first thing a human does with any discovery? Fire, stone Metal, chemistry--he makes a weapon with it.

Also, you might want to look into the Royal Rife machine that was invented a few decades back. There are some who claim it cured their cancer, but the medical industry, which stands to profit from never finding a cure for cancer, has blacklisted research into this technology for any curative purposes.

...

I gotta sign off for the night...No offense is meant if I don't respond to any other comments.

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: "There are some who claim it cured their cancer, but the medical industry, which stands to profit from never finding a cure for cancer, has blacklisted research into this technology for any curative purposes."
There are frequently claims of this, but to me they sound too much like conspiracy theory...there are just too many people who would have to be involved for something to be completely buried like this, and if there are that many people involved it would seem to be impossible for it to remain unknown....I'm pretty sure Tiger Woods has some thoughts on the difficulties of keeping even a relatively small number of people quiet. Does that mean I think the pharmaceutical industry is blemish free? No, of course not, but I think vigilance (something you have mentioned) is important, and there are those out there writing books (e.g. Ben Goldacre) and blogs (e.g. Neurologica Blog) who will take the industry to task when they get things wrong, and when their business practices are less than optimal (e.g. companies hosting all expenses paid trips for doctors). The problem with these claims of conspiracy is they are often used as an attempt to legitimise the charlatans you refer to, who claim they have a cure for cancer but that they have been suppressed....and for a mere $100,000 they will cure you by shoving toy soldiers up your nose....it works, but the research has been quashed by Big Pharma!

[Heather]

Robert wrote: "cerebus wrote: "The only problem is if it is explainable by science it ceases to be supernatural, it simply becomes part of science. If science discovers telepathy is real, it becomes another area ..."

In response to your Rife device argument, I just did some research into it and it doesn't work and was found to not work as early as the 30s; people have actually died in choosing to forgo treatment and using this device instead.

Furthermore, the medical industry does not profit from cancer; in fact, they lose a crap ton of money from treatment. There's a reason cancer treatment is so bloody expensive, and it's not because people are looking to profit.

Also, a cure for cancer would be too exciting to cover up; scientists generally cannot contain themselves when they make a revolutionary discovery.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "This is what I thought Shannon was subtly implying too, you put it more bluntly. If theists are unwilling to discuss theirs and other beliefs and points of veiw perhaps the reason lies with them and not others... "

If people are unwilling to discuss their beliefs and their viewpoints, the reason might lie with them. If that's the case....

Of course, things aren't usually that simple, are they?

It might also involve the intentions of the questioners, yes?

For example, ....

There could be people who question, because they want to learn more about believers and their beliefs, as you've suggested.

Of course, there also could be those who do so in an attempt to point out the wrongs of belief, solely.

If the latter, it is a trap of sorts. It has nothing to do with being forced to answer questions. It's a "trap" of thinking someone actually wants to hear what you have to say. The trap of thinking someone wants to understand. When, in reality, the person has no real desire to hear the other's point of view in order to learn why the person believes or to understand. That particular person simply wants to negate the person's argument, fighting the good fight against belief. (And, yes, while first time posters could read all 185 pages prior to posting, I'm guessing many see the question pop up, answer it, and aren't familiar with the way of this thread.)

Anyone who is truly honest will admit that people here have done both. It's ridiculously obvious. Both.

Given that, ....

Who, truly, would enjoy answering the questions of people who are in it for the latter? I say "enjoy" because I've answered the questions of both. I've not run from questions. Ignored them. Pretended I didn't see them. I don't fear questions. I am, though, discouraged by those who are disingenuous. I should think that's pretty universal.

[Debbie]

Religion is my choice. I believe attending a church and believing there is only ONE TRUE religion breeds judgmental and close minded people. However, I consider myself spiritual AND have attended many churches in my live. EVERY religion has the same theme; Love each other, do not judge others, and strive for peace and serenity. The organization of many churches have corrupted these beliefs with crazy rules and practices.
Science is only beneficial to mankind
if spiritual beliefs are first and foremost.

[cerebus]

Robert wrote: 'It is my understanding that the first person to be titled an “atheist” was Socrates. He didn’t believe in Zeus the way the religious leaders of his time did, and in the end they put him to death for it. Plato also questioned the Zeus of his time. By that definition, I, too, am an atheist, because I don’t accept the conventional, Zeus-like image of the Christian God. My personal experiences with the unexplained and the spiritual don’t leave that option open to me."
It is interesting to hear someone who has faith, or some sort, also acknowledge they could be described as an atheist. I think of the majority of believers (not all before anyone thinks I mean them!) who have visited this thread you don't have that fear and mistrust of atheism, which seems to stem from a lack of understanding of what it actually is. Atheists on this thread have often pointed out to even the most strictly (for example) christian believers on here that they are in fact atheist when it comes to a god like Zeus, or Shiva, or Ra. In your example I would personally not identify you as an atheist as you still seem to have some concept of a greater power? For me atheism is not even having that...at least that's the kind of atheist I am :)

Robert wrote: "The original definition of the word "metaphysics" means "beyond physics". I have been called a metaphysicist simply because my theories were byond what has been accepted by science. Then again, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, etc, all worked in the "metaphysical" fields of their day. Today's metaphysicists are in good company."
Yup, and as long as they're still doing 'science', looking for evidence, submitting their work for peer-review etc, then it's no different to the Faraday's and so on. It is when the metaphysical make claims that are unsupported that (I feel) we are entitled to ignore them.

Robert wrote: " I have seen three good friends who professed atheism suddenly curse God when tragedy struck in their lives."
Out of curiosity was it a generic swearing type reaction, or an actual cursing of a deity?

Robert wrote: "...Although Einstein came close when he realized the potential of his atomic research. What is the first thing a human does with any discovery? Fire, stone Metal, chemistry--he makes a weapon with it."
Yup, because people are always the weakest link in these things :) The intention of many on the manhattan project, and those who had pushed for it, was that it be demonstrated, but not used, hoping that the threat would be sufficient to end the war. Of course, those who end up in positions to make these decisions are usually the power hungry, the sociopaths, psychopaths or the ideologists, so they used it in anger instead. It is a failing of people, not science, that things like weapons sometimes result. The problem is, as I think we have agreed, there is a scientific truth out there, whether we know it or not, and trying to block off areas of research do not make it go away....in instances like nuclear weapons it was inevitable that the potential for destruction would be discovered, the great fear at the time of course was that the Axis were also working on their own version, and based on their previous behaviour would use it fairly indiscriminately. As it turns out, they were working on one, but were further behind than realised. Even with keeping the science behind it confidential, the Soviets were very quickly able to complete their own. Anyway, sorry, that's a digression to make the simple point that people stuff things up :)

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "This too... wouldn't want them to feel ignored :) "

I'll eagerly await your questioning of non-believers, then.... Since there are so many different types of non-believers and they've likely come to different conclusions regarding religion and all that ....

Of course, many non-believers treat this thread differently, too. There are the "hit-and-run" non-believers who drop comments about religion causing all wars, never to be heard from again. I'm sure if there's interest in seeing how believers feel about the whole debate thing, there must be interest in seeing how non-believers feel. Yes?

And, if one is concerned about people feeling left out ....

Mmmm.... Will look forward to a new chapter in this thread! Non-believers questioning all posters with equal verve. I'd say I can't sleep in anticipation for things to come ... but ... I can't sleep for other reasons.

[cerebus]

Debbie wrote: "Science is only beneficial to mankind
if spiritual beliefs are first and foremost. "
Can you expand on this please? From my perspective they are different, and spiritual beliefs do not necessarily make science beneficial or otherwise, they simply do not impact.

[cerebus]

Shannon wrote: "I'll eagerly await your questioning of non-believers, then.... Since there are so many different types of non-believers and they've likely come to different conclusions regarding religion and all that ..."
I would definitely question a non-believer who then appeared to hold a position inconsistent with this. One of the four horsemen of "new atheism" that is sometimes quoted is Sam Harris, but after starting to read one of his books where he denigrated organised religion, but then seemed to open the door to eastern philosophies and spirituality, I found it to be an inconsistent position and wouldn't use him as an example. (At this stage I would ask anyone who has read Harris more diligently than I to correct me if I am mistaken). Similarly I'm pretty sure I questioned someone on their use of Bill Maher and his film Religulous to support a non-believer position, and pointed out that while he may be an atheist he holds some anti-science positions that I find incompatible with his "rational" persona, namely he is a germ-theory denier.

[Mary]

Wow this discussion has really taken off, and as internet forum discussions go, it has also been pretty civil. I took the original question to be asking for people's opinions, so here is mine.

I would rather do without religion. I feel religion's main goal is to control the behavior of its members and to wield power, usually after extracting money from its followers. I feel this because religion is a man-made construct, and where ever people gather, you can be sure power, money and control become issues.
I will admit I do not know exactly how the universe works. But 40 years of life experience, travel to many different places in the world, having friendships with many different people of different faiths and customs, and extensive study of world history has led me to form my opinion.
I feel that almost nothing of our present lives resembles life 2000 yrs ago. Technology, medicine, transportation, education, and science in no way resemble ancient Jerusalem. Yet we cling to a religion based on the beliefs and culture of people 2000 yrs.ago.When the Chumash Indians couldn't explain how their people got to the islands off Santa Barbara, they made up a story. When Greeks, Romans etc couldn't explain natural phenomenon, they blamed gods and goddesses.
I do not believe that god has a long white beard, sits in heaven and sent a son to die for me. I do not believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, that Moses parted the Red Sea or that Noah put two of every animal on an ark. It all sounds like something we tell our kids when we want them to behave, like Santa won't come if you're not good or the cucuy/boogieman will get you if you are bad. And every religion out there has something "unbelievable" in its teachings, or else faith would not be required.
I believe the bible is a collect of stories, like Aesop's fables. I know you cannot ask 6 kids about an incident at recess without getting 6 different stories. Police interviewing crime witnesses will tell you the same thing. SO I am supposed to believe that this book was written by men, retelling something that occurred decades and sometimes even centuries before, that they did not see themselves and that they got it exactly right? No opinion or editorializing took place? I do not believe it.
I do not believe in a god who would create a world, and then let atrocities take place, or who would turn his back on billions of his own creation because they didn't follow "the one true" faith. But that is what most religions require. They say we are the only way, the one true way. Both sides in a war, or a locker room, or political race pray to their god and I just do not believe in a god who would give his creations free will and then take a side.

Religion has added nothing to my life, and I did try very hard to feel what those around me in church were feeling. But I prefer logic to faith, it just rings true to me.But when I turn on the computer, or drive my car, or take penicillin for something that would have killed me 2000 yrs ago, I can say that science has made my life better.

Okay that's my opinion, and I have formed it over a long period of time, using a lot of personal experience and education. I do not need to be "convinced" otherwise. Just as I do not try to tell others what to do. You can believe, feel or do whatever you like, as long as you do not cause harm to others.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "I would definitely question a non-believer who"

Oh, I agree. You would. Further, I've seen you question non-believers from time to time. ;)

You're one of the few, maybe even the only.

I'd say, from the tone of many of your posts and from the fact that you actually do question both believers and non-believers, that you actually do want to understand ... as well as correct inaccurate perceptions regarding morality. I don't see you as the latter, the person who could care less how a person answers but is simply in it to negate whatever s/he says.

[[deleted user]]

cerebus wrote: "Bill Maher"

I also hear he's gone a bit rogue of late, questioning the high taxes in California and saying something about the Iraq war ... something positive. From what I hear, many liberals are freaking out and calling him to task. Of course, I've also heard people say he made those comments for ratings. Hmmm....

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "This is what I thought Shannon was subtly implying too, you put it more bluntly. If theists are unwilling to discuss theirs and other beliefs and points of veiw perhaps the reason lie with them. If that's the case....

Of course, things aren't usually that simple, are they?

Of course not, but the fact remains no one is lured here or force to remain and answer anything...

It might also involve the intentions of the questioners, yes?

For example, ....

There could be people who question, because they want to learn more about believers and their beliefs, as you've suggested.

Of course, there also could be those who do so in an attempt to point out the wrongs of belief, solely.

If the latter, it is a trap of sorts. It has nothing to do with being forced to answer questions. It's a "trap" of thinking someone actually wants to hear what you have to say. The trap of thinking someone wants to understand. When, in reality, the person has no real desire to hear the other's point of view in order to learn why the person believes or to understand. That particular person simply wants to negate the person's argument, fighting the good fight against belief. (And, yes, while first time posters could read all 185 pages prior to posting, I'm guessing many see the question pop up, answer it, and aren't familiar with the way of this thread.)

Anyone who is truly honest will admit that people here have done both. It's ridiculously obvious. Both.

Perhaps but there are no guarantee's offered that's the chance adults take if they wish engage in discourse, perhaps it's a little case of harden up princess, the world isn't always a softly softly we all love each other place..
There's no need to read all 185 pages but a cursory examination would give them a sense of the tone to make a decision about.

Given that, ....

Who, truly, would enjoy answering the questions of people who are in it for the latter? I say "enjoy" because I've answered the questions of both. I've not run from questions. Ignored them. Pretended I didn't see them. I don't fear questions. I am, though, discouraged by those who are disingenuous. I should think that's pretty universal. "

Depends on the personality (like you said) and again the implication they have to answer anything

[Shanna]

Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "This too... wouldn't want them to feel ignored :) "

I'll eagerly await your questioning of non-believers, then.... Since there are so many different types of non-believers and they..."

That was tongue in cheek I would and do (not so much here) question a non-believer if I didn't understand their comment or point of view.

But I guess I can look forward to you examining your fellow believers comments too... :P

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "Perhaps but there are no guarantee's offered that's the chance adults take if they wish engage in discourse, perhaps it's a little case of harden up princess, the world isn't always a softly softly we all love each other place.. There's no need to read all 185 pages but a cursory examination would give them a sense of the tone to make a decision about."

Well, dang.... Thanks for being honest about it. That's the chance adults take when they talk with non-believers, huh...? Hmmm....

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "But I guess I can look forward to you examining your fellow believers comments too... :P "

Thanks for the chuckle, Shanna.

Perhaps you weren't reading posts when I questioned John, just the other day. Perhaps you weren't reading posts when I questioned cHriS and cs. Perhaps you weren't reading all of the times I've posted and spoken against believers who say religion brings morality.

Oh, wait. You were reading then.

Question...

Did you forget all the times I've questioned believers? Or, did you make that comment to make yourself feel better? You know.... Shannon's just like "us".... Or, is there another reason you'd imply I don't do something that I actually do, as anyone who has read the last 85 pages is fully aware? Perhaps you were being tongue-in-cheek again.

And, .... I guess I can look forward to more of the same. Cerebus will want to understand and attempt to clear up the inaccuracies of believers who think only the religious are moral and non-believers who say religion causes all wars and all evil deeds. Other non-believers...? Well, they'll likely content themselves to simply question all believers, including first-time posters, likely in the attempt to negate belief and not caring a flying flip what any posters might say ... whether non-believers are talking out of their arses and making statements that are blatantly inaccurate or whether believers are being sincere.

Take away message.... Grow up, princess. Roger that.